[EM] Competitive Districting Rule

[raphfrk at netscape.net]

From: Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>

> Agreed that redistricting should be based only on the decennial 
census - what was done in Texas needs forbidding.

Btw, what is your opinion on having districts setup so that a minority 
group can get a reasonable number of seats ?

> Likewise what they were doing about safe seats. Still, any formula 
based on parties is dangerous, for there is
> too much temptation to make it favor the formula writers.

I agree, the rules generally shouldn't refer to parties.  However, I 
couldn't see how you
would figure out what the expected vote would be in each district as 
the computer
balances them.

> What happens if Frisco is heavily Dem and LA is heavily Rep?

In both places, alot of the districts would be balanced 50/50 and also 
the party with the most support
would have a few districts where it has higher support.  For example, 
if there was 10 seats, 5 might be "safe"
and the other 5 would be optimised to be reasonably close to 50/50.

> So I favor neutrality, based on the formulas not being allowed to 
KNOW anything about registration or voting.

> BUT, I would expand "contiguous" - some initial thoughts:
> Hudson River: Lower Hudson is not crossable, so should be considered 
a solid wall
> when measuring distances. It is crossable at bridges, so consider 
them an expense to cross.
> Other boundaries such as lakes, railroads, and expressways - consider 
crossability.
> Manhattan - count most of the bridges and tunnels a solid wall.
> Staten Island - water around it is mostly a solid wall except, if it 
is worth 2.5 districts, count
> the bridge to Brooklyn as connecting two half districts.
> County boundaries:
> Need a bit of porosity, for some counties cannot hold whole 
districts.
> Need some resistance, to discourage excessive crossing.
> Other boundaries such as towns and cities - still trying to favor 
keeping communities
> together - and having districts share boundaries.

What about

- the centre is the point inside the district that minimises the total 
distance from residents to the centre
- distances are calculated as travelled by road
- 1 mile (or some distance) is added to the distance for every boundary 
passed through (county/city)

This would mean that the all else being equal, the district boundaries 
would not cross
county boundaries.

I would still like a way to make it so that all districts are 
reasonably competitive.

What about the following:

Voters are also asked who they would have voted for if they were to 
vote in the nearest
neighbouring district.  This would mean that information would be 
available on what would
happen if a specific polling booth was to be swapped from one district 
to that neighbour.

This could allow the districts to be updated after each election, 
keeping them as close to
un-safe as possible.

This would make the government very dependant on "swing" since the 
previous election.